Policy and Practice April 2017

PRESIDENT’S MEMO continued from page 3

on Frameworks research in human services, we know that the shared American value of human potential is an effective means of connecting people to the idea that all of us should have the opportunity to live to our full potential and that well-being is not something we are born with but is built by the environment around us. Once we have set that stage, we can use numbers to help explain the issue and what the policy opportunities are to prevent or resolve the problem. “Social math” is the practice of translating statistics and other data so that they are meaningful to an audience and helpful in advancing public policy. Comparisons to familiar things can be helpful; for example, comparing the cost benefit of making investments in a school over a prison—both well-known institutions. Using numbers this way is a part of effective framing. When it is done well, social math disrupts old mindsets and can open up new ways of seeing the issue and the solution(s). All of this takes practice. At APHSA, we have developed training curricula, tools, and technical assistance supports on framing tailored for health and human services. If you are interested in exploring these services, please contact me or Emily Campbell, who leads our Organizational Effectiveness practice, at ecampbell@aphsa.org.

to how human services can prevent unnecessary reliance on government supports, positively impact popula- tion health and well-being, and reduce downstream costs. Second, we need to use numbers more effectively. We are bombarded with news stories involving large numbers. Especially related to government or charities, we hear about billions of dollars spent on services or the historic number of people served in a program. These frames evoke an unproductive response and almost always result in default thinking about gov-

share success stories, we must paint the full picture. Frames that include the environmental and community context up front in our narrative are far more effective. Whole family or multigenera- tional approaches that bridge sectors are particularly helpful frames for showing what works across the lifecycle of a family in the community in which they live, work, and play. Consider the con- nected systems at play, for example, in shaping the trajectory of young parents who find initial support in a TANF program (human services system) that provides themwith new job skills (workforce system) that lead to a quality

job (employer), and where child care sub- sidies (early learning and care) mean Dad or Mom can take that job and simul- taneously assure quality early learning and care for their children. Another way to apply this metaphor is to flip the lens completely to tell the story of how the human services system is a funda- mental building

We have to get better at showing the full landscape. Thismeans whenwe share success stories, wemust paint the full picture. Frames that include the environmental and community context up front inour narrative are farmore effective.

ernment waste or ineffective use of charitable dollars. There are two keys to remember when using numbers to illustrate your point. First, it is important to provide the “why” up front. Numbers alone don’t tell the story and won’t move people to a more productive frame. This is true even when you’re making a compelling case

block for healthy human development and well-being. When we show how education, health, employment, and other sectors are naturally connected to human services, we turn the focus

for a program’s return on investment to a community. Before you introduce how effective a service is, you need to first show what is at stake and why it matters. For example, building

FOSTER CHILD continued from page 24

doctrine, such doctrine should not bar an action by a minor child against a biological parent for damages arising from sexual abuse when the child is in foster care. A parental immunity doctrine should not be a shield for parental moral depravity. Daniel Pollack is a professor atYeshiva University’s School of SocialWork in NewYork City. He can be reached at dpollack@yu.edu; (212) 960-0836.

against his or her parent for personal injuries arising out of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual exploitation. If a child living with his or her bio- logical parents is permitted to bring a legal action against a biological parent for sexual abuse, is it not com- pelling that, all the more so, a child living in foster care can also bring a similar action? It is time for all states to embrace the idea that, to whatever extent it retains a parental immunity

of such wrongful, intentional, heinous acts [sexual abuse acts] without a right to redress those wrongs in a civil action is unconscionable, especially where the harm to the family fabric has already occurred through that abuse (p. 266).” In similar fashion, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in Henderson v. Woolley (230 Conn. 472 (1994)), held that the common law parental immunity doctrine did not bar a civil lawsuit for damages by a minor child

Policy&Practice   April 2017 30